↓ Skip to main content

The Degree of One Health Implementation in the West Nile Virus Integrated Surveillance in Northern Italy, 2016

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Degree of One Health Implementation in the West Nile Virus Integrated Surveillance in Northern Italy, 2016
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00236
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giulia Paternoster, Laura Tomassone, Marco Tamba, Mario Chiari, Antonio Lavazza, Mauro Piazzi, Anna R. Favretto, Giacomo Balduzzi, Alessandra Pautasso, Barbara R. Vogler

Abstract

West Nile virus (WNV) is endemic in the Po valley area, Northern Italy, and within the legal framework of the national plan for the surveillance of human vector-borne diseases, WNV surveillance has over time been implemented. The surveillance plans are based on the transdisciplinary and trans-sectorial collaboration between regional institutions involved in public, animal, and environmental health. This integrated surveillance targets mosquitoes, wild birds, humans, and horses and aims at early detecting the viral circulation and reducing the risk of infection in the human populations. The objective of our study was to assess the degree of One Health (OH) implementation (OH-ness) of the WNV surveillance system in three North Italian regions (Emilia-Romagna, Lombardy, Piedmont) in 2016, following the evaluation protocol developed by the Network for Evaluation of One Health (NEOH). In detail, we (i) described the OH initiative (drivers, outcomes) and its system (boundaries, aim, dimensions, actors, stakeholders) and (ii) scored different aspects of this initiative (i.e., OH-thinking, -planning, -sharing, -learning, transdisciplinarity and leadership), with values from 0 (=no OH approach) to 1 (=perfect OH approach). We obtained a mean score for each aspect evaluated. We reached high scores for OH thinking (0.90) and OH planning (0.89). Lower scores were attributed to OH sharing (0.83), transdisciplinarity and leadership (0.77), and OH learning (0.67), highlighting some critical issues related to communication and learning gaps. The strengths and weaknesses detected by the described quantitative evaluation will be investigated in detail by a qualitative evaluation (process evaluation), aiming to provide a basis for the development of shared recommendations to refine the initiative and conduct it in a more OH-oriented perspective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 22%
Student > Master 15 13%
Other 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 5%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 30 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 18 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 7%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Environmental Science 6 5%
Other 28 25%
Unknown 34 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#7,159,578
of 25,302,890 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,817
of 13,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,098
of 321,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#38
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,302,890 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,837 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,893 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.